1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Dave Ramsey for president!

    Let him put this country on a budget.
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You are largely correct. They used a lot of BS in how they sold the tax cuts.

    In a healthy economy, more money retained by businesses could conceivably fund investment in the business. Businesses that want to grow behave that way. There is absolutely no incentive for that in the 2 percentish economy we have stagnated with for the last decade. Why would you build a new factory when the demand isn't there for your products and you can't foresee any return on your investment. Earnings have been largely stagnant, except for the last 2 quarters, which corresponds with one last liquidity injection from various central banks and the tax cuts. Most businesses themselves aren't growing (save a few tech names). Many are getting killed, actually. One way to financially engineer a higher stock price in that environment is to buy back your own stocks -- trillions of dollars of it, and it has gone on for the last 5 to 8 years as money was artificially cheap. Borrow, use the money to buy back your stock, which sends the stock price up. It was coming to an end, but the tax cuts gave it one last gasp. Executives love it, because while they approve those buybacks they are cashing in on their own stock and reaping the profit.

    You are right. They sold the tax cut as, "This is going to lead to sustained 4 percent growth." As in, it was going to create investment that would pay for itself. It's nonsense. It gave us a one-time sugar high that may last another quarter, if that. But we are drowning in debt, because the fiscal and monetary shenanigans work hand in hand, and we have been running up more and more debt just to get that 2 percentish growth for the last decade, and the only reason that has been possible has been central banks furiously injecting more and more leverage and liquidity into the world. We are not just living on debt. The amount of leverage (and potentially dangerous areas that have been kept alive like zombies on cheap money) is staggering at this point.

    The way you create growth is through saving and investment. We have done the exact opposite. We have had a central bank that has been robbing savers to encourage debtors on this misguided notion that what that debt buys is growth. What it actually does is create misallocated capital and credit crises and discourages HEALTHY investment.

    I'm all for zero taxes. As much as anyone. But in the environment I am describing, it was irresponsible to cut the amount of money our Federal government was bringing in at the same time they wer increasing spending (much of which are entitlements that are locked in and are just going to become greater and greater). We have a runaway debt problem in this country, at every level -- state, local and our Federal government. Corporate balance sheets that are loaded with debt (much of which went to buying back trillions of dollars of stock to engineer a stock market bull run -- what the Federal Reserve stupidly engineered because they never learn). And at the consumer level, where there are trillion dollar student loan, credit card, subprime auto loan messes that have built up.

    It's an unsustainable path.
     
  3. britwrit

    britwrit Well-Known Member


    Sorry. I just caught up with this but.... My doubt here is that we're in a situation where fast food workers are being forced to rely on government assistance to get by. One study I saw said that it was 52 percent, which is probably too much but we're still talking about a lot of money.

    Of course, this leads to a whole bigger question, one which we probably don't have space on this board to discuss. Should a company or an industry pay higher wages if they indirectly benefit from the economic environment that the government creates? Say, through a subsidized meat and diary sector or a lower capital gains tax? Or is it only when they get a direct tax break or they get cut a check?
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Ragu: They sold the tax cuts as, “This is going to lead to sustained 4% growth.”

    Growth: 4%

    Ragu: It gave us a one-time sugar high, that may last another quarter, if that.

    So, it’s done everything they predicted, but we’re going to refuse to give them credit, and have preemptively denied them credit for next quarter’s growth as well.

    When do they ger credit? How many quarters of 4% growth do we need? How low does unemployment need to get? How much do wages need to grow?
     
  5. Patchen

    Patchen Well-Known Member

    I see a difference between over-heated and bad remarks made by tv pundits and the President pointing to a group of people in front of thousands of his angry fans and labeling them the enemy of the people. It does not seem hard to see that distinction.

     
    OscarMadison likes this.
  6. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    • sus·tained

    • səˈstānd/

    continuing for an extended period or without interruption."several years of sustained economic growth"





     
  7. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    Went to the market; forgot my ID.

    Went home to get it, cause I'm an idiot, you see.
     
    HanSenSE likes this.
  8. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    The root issue of the Trump nightmare:

     
  9. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    She has a point.

     
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Sure. It’s too soon to call it sustained.

    But, isn’t it also too soon to call it a failure?

    We’re right where we would expect and want to be, if these policies were working. And, instead of waiting to see if this continues, the very success is cited as evidence of the failure of the policy.

    And, it’s funny to remember to the predictions we saw prior to, and just after Trump’s election. It was predicted that his policies would plunge us into a depression. The stock market would crash.

    Instead, we have growth, low unemployment, and a market that is up substantially.

    Is there some point in the future, where if the growth continues, Trump, and his policies, will get some credit, because there looks to be a real reluctance to even consider the idea that he deserves some.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    I'm perfectly willing to wait and see.

    But let's not ignore all the arguments to the contrary, either.
     
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Obama spends $10 at local bakery, and media swoons.

    Trump donates entire $400,000 salary, and media doesn’t notice it.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page